State v. Willis
| Citation | 37 Mo. 192 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. ALBERT WILLIS, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1866 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Laclede Circuit Court.
The indictment in this case charges that the defendant did, on the 11th day of April, 1864, “at his place occupied for that purpose, unlawfully deal as a merchant, without then and there having a license authorizing him to deal as a merchant, by then and there selling to one D. A. W. Morehouse articles of merchandise, which articles” were not. &c.
The defendant filed his motion to quash, which was sustained by the court and the State appealed.
The indictment is framed on the law of 1858-9 (Session Acts, p. 53). The first section declares that “every person or co-partnership of persons who shall deal in the selling of goods, wares, and merchandise, at any store, stand or place, occupied for that purpose, is declared a merchant.” The second action enacts that no person “shall deal as a merchant without a license first obtained according to law.”
Whilst the indictment is very inartificially and informally drawn, we are of opinion that it is sufficient. No indictment shall be affected for any “defect or imperfection which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.” (R. C. 1855, p. 1176, § 27.)
The selling of goods, and dealing as a merchant without license, is the gravamen of the offence. The defendant is charged with dealing as a merchant without license, at a place occupied by him for that purpose. This fully apprises him of what he is called on to defend against, and we do not see how any injury can result to him, because the alleged offence is not described with technical legal precision. This case is not distinguishable from State v. Cox, 32 Mo. 566.
The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Watson
...3 Ill. 265. [T12] Collins' Case, 9 Leigh, 666. [U12] Com. v. Fox, 10 Phila. 204. [V12] Com. v. Dudley, 3 Metc. (Ky.) 221. [W12] State v. Willis, 37 Mo. 192. [X12] Tracy v. State, 3 Mo. 2. [Y12] State v. Myers, 63 Mo. 324. [Z12] State v. Miller, 24 Mo. 532; Page v. State, 6 Mo. 205. [A13] Pe......
-
City of Aurora v. McGannon
...1605, p. 453; City of St. Louis v. Sternberg, 69 Mo. 289, 299; City of St. Louis v. Green, 70 Mo. 562; State v. Cox, 32 Mo. 566; State v. Willis, 37 Mo. 192; State v. Myers, 63 Mo. 324; St. Louis v. Green, above cited. Carr McNatt, with whom is Edw. J. White, for respondent. (1) There is no......
-
City of St. Louis v. Sternberg
...essence of the offense consists in pursuing the avocation without license when one is required by law. State v. Cox, 32 Mo. 566; State v. Willis, 37 Mo. 192; State v. Whittaker, 33 Mo. 457; State v. Jacobs, 38 Mo. 379; State v. Rucker, 24 Mo. 557. State v. Myers, 63 Mo. 324. It matters not ......
-
State v. Mason
......No such elements are involved. in the charge in the complaint. Among cases which show the. necessity for such allegations and how to plead violations of. such acts, we may cite Leps v. State , 120. Ga. 139, 47 S.E. 572; Commonwealth v. Nex ,. 13 Grat., Va., 789; State v. Willis , 37 Mo. 192, 193; State v. Cox , 32 Mo. 566;. State v. Jacobs , 38 Mo. 379; 25 Cyc. 636-7,. and cases there cited; Commonwealth v. Smith , 69 Ky. 303, 6 Bush 303; Mork v. Commonwealth , 69 Ky. 397, 6 Bush 397. . . But the. decisions of our own court have settled the ......